Education

I don't understand where you would have gotten the erroneous notion that a complete fossil record is required to substantiate the claims of evolutionists. The fact that there's a fossil record of any kind, and fossils of any number of transitional organisms, is more than enough to substantiate the fundamental accuracy of evolution.

Schraf, I already told you due to your behaviour, I would not participate on that thread any longer. Maybe you didn't realize I was serious.I did note though that someone else provided a link as you were demanding, and you still ignored it.

What do you call Haeckel's drawings and the theory of recapitulation, if not a myth?

Please substantiate this. Specifically show:1. How the mere fact of fossils of any kind substantiates evolution. For example, how many fossils of transitionals does ToE predict, or are you you merely arguing a totally unfalsifiable theory.2. How any number of transitionals shows evolution. Should there not be some sort of prediction or analysis of how many transitionals should be found? To just claim any that are found more or less proves evolution is basically, once again, not showing a falsifiable scientific theory, since what you are arguing is that any combination of fossils automatically verifies evolution.

So the fact your wife studies beetle evolution somehow validates 125 years of presenting a myth, faked data, as accurate, eh?Too bad you evos don't abandon all the faked stuff. Maybe if you did and stuck to not overstating the data and exagerrating the evidence, the evidence such as your wife's work could be presented.But then again, I am not sure showing that all beetles share common descent does much to prove evolution. The creationists would just argue that beetles are one kind, and so speciation based on that one kind is in full accord with their predictions.

With respect to you, Rand, I call them obsessions.

Sometimes they can be the same thing.But it's not an obsession. I just think truly understanding the evolution of recapitulation theory and Haeckel's drawings provides a good window into the mentality of evolutionists.This message has been edited by randman, 12-11-2005 10:21 PM

As you know, the theory of evolution considers ALL individual organisms, and thus all fossils, to be transitional between prior and subsequent generations.You use a weird, ad hoc, creationist-devised definition of the word "transitional" that apparently means a chimera, something no evolutionist would predict. As you know, predicting how many fossils may be found is so contingent as to be senseless--to predict how many should be found would be inane.As to how many transitionals should be found: why, just count the fossils, Rand. They all qualify. Even you.

The randman account of Haeckel's drawings are what strike me as myth making.I took one year of biology as an undergraduate. The text included Haeckel's drawings. They had no influence on my views of evolution. I started the course uncertain about evolution, and I finished the course uncertain about evolution.The trouble with Haeckel's drawings, is that I would have needed to spend considerable time studying embryology before I could have a reasonable idea how to interpret them. While the diagrams suggested something interesting, there was no way that I could take them as substantial evidence for evolution.Sure, there is a myth. That myth is the absurd conspiracy theory that randman is peddling.

---

What shall it profit a nation if it gain the whole world, yet lose its own soul.
(paraphrasing Mark 8:36)

Even the guy in the street knows that faking and doctoring photos is wrong. Apparently everyone knows this but evos.

Crash made a claim. I am merely asking him to substantiate it.Are you saying his claim is in error?

So doctoring evidence and putting it in textbooks is acceptable to you.Ok, but most of the rest of America thinks things like that are wrong.

Yes, and we feel the same way about your fixation on antique errors, and your inability to see improvements in scientific understanding as something other than perpetual fraud, like your previous insistence that acceptance of the Big Bang theory was an atheist plot...Nothing personal, mind you, but you're like a bulldog with drawings no educated evolutionist has placed any credence in for decades clamped in your jaws as though you had found the Lost Bone.

---

Just because as we dig a little deeper, our notions change does not mean the discoveries are not useful.--randman

Nope. I'm answering your questions in the light of my own understanding and your prior assertions.I'm sure crash can take care of himself.

Randman, there's no forum rule that obligates me to "substantiate" claims that I did not make, for instance: This is not a claim that I have made. This is a claim that you have falsely attempted to portray as my own. Since the theory of evolution is a model of organisms, and not of fossilization, it makes no predictions about the number of fossils we should find. If it's predictions of fossils that you're after I suggest you interrogate a geologist. The theory of evolution is the topic, here; I would expect an admin to know better than that. The theory of evolution is not a model of how we uncover fossils, so again, it makes no predictions about what fossils we will or will not find. Models of paleontology and geology are not on topic in this forum, and an admin should know better than to try and send a topic off the rails, as you appear to be doing. I must ask that you desist this behavior at once. Again, I'm under no obligation to substantiate claims not of my own assertion.Moreover, the fact that the presence of even one single transitional form disproves special creation of organisms and lends support to the evolutionary model should be obvious to anyone not motivated by a desperate need to slander honest scientists.